This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

22603 

Vol. 76, No. 78 

Friday, April 22, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, 225, and 226 

RIN 0584–AE03 

Geographic Preference Option for the 

Procurement of Unprocessed 

Agricultural Products in Child Nutrition 

Programs 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The 2008 Farm Bill amended 

the Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act to direct that the Secretary of 

Agriculture encourage institutions 

operating Child Nutrition Programs to 

purchase unprocessed locally grown 

and locally raised agricultural products. 

Effective October 1, 2008, institutions 

receiving funds through the Child 

Nutrition Programs may apply an 

optional geographic preference in the 

procurement of unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products. This provision applies to 

institutions in all of the Child Nutrition 

Programs, including the National School 

Lunch Program, School Breakfast 

Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Program, Special Milk Program for 

Children, Child and Adult Care Food 

Program and Summer Food Service 

Program, as well as to purchases made 

for these programs by the Department of 

Defense Fresh Program. The provision 

also applies to State agencies making 

purchases on behalf of any of the 

aforementioned Child Nutrition 

Programs. The purpose of this rule is to 

finalize the geographic preference 

option in Child Nutrition Programs. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 23, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Brewer, Chief, Policy and Program 

Development Branch, Child Nutrition 

Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22302, or by telephone at (703) 

305–2590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4302 of Public Law 110–246, 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 

of 2008, amended section 9(j) of the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)) to require 

the Secretary of Agriculture to 

encourage institutions operating Child 

Nutrition Programs to purchase 

unprocessed locally grown and locally 

raised agricultural products. Pursuant to 

section 4407 of Public Law 110–246, 

beginning October 1, 2008, institutions 

receiving funds as participants in the 

Child Nutrition Programs may apply an 

optional geographic preference in the 

procurement of unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products. This provision applies to 

institutions operating all of the Child 

Nutrition Programs, including the 

National School Lunch Program, School 

Breakfast Program, Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, Special Milk 

Program, Child and Adult Care Food 

Program and Summer Food Service 

Program, as well as to purchases made 

for these programs by the Department of 

Defense Fresh Program. The provision 

does not apply to purchases made by 

the Department. However, the provision 

does also apply to State agencies making 

purchases on behalf of any of the 

aforementioned Child Nutrition 

Programs. The provisions were initially 

implemented through policy 

memoranda and explanatory question 

and answer communications dated 

January 9, 2009, July 22, 2009, and 

October 9, 2009. 

The Department published a proposed 

rule on April 19, 2010, at 75 FR 20316 

to solicit comments on the 

incorporation of this procurement 

option in Child Nutrition Program 

regulations. The rule also served to 

define the term ‘‘unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products’’ to ensure that both the intent 

of Congress in providing for such a 

procurement option was met and that 

any such definition would facilitate ease 

of implementation for institutions 

participating in the Child Nutrition 

Programs. The comment period ended 

on June 18, 2010. The Department 

received 77 comments on the proposed 

rule. The following discussion provides 

information on the comments as well as 

a discussion of the clarifications and 

changes made to the proposal based on 

the comments received. 

General Comments 

In general, the comments received by 

the Department were very supportive of 

the regulation as proposed. Fifty-eight 

comments commended the Department 

for clarifying previous interpretations of 

the geographic preference option for 

procurement. Forty-four commentors 

stated that they believed the updated 

language of the rule more closely 

complied with the Congressional 

Conference Report language that 

indicated that there is no intent to 

preclude ‘‘de minimus handling and 

preparation such as necessary to present 

an agricultural product to a school food 

authority in a useable form.’’ Fortyseven comments supported the 

provision of the rule allowing the 

purchasing entity, such as local school 

food authorities, to determine the local 

area to which a geographic preference 

will be applied, indicating that they 

agreed with the Department’s view that 

individual circumstances and product 

availability leads to the most successful 

local and regional procurement 

programs. 

Procurement Issues 

As indicated in the proposed rule, 

traditionally, a geographic preference 

established for procurements provides 

bidders located in a specified 

geographic area additional points or 

credit calculated during the evaluation 

of the proposals or bids received in 

response to a solicitation. A geographic 

preference is not a procurement setaside for bidders located in the specified 

geographic area, guaranteeing them a 

certain level or percentage of business. 

In addition, including a geographic 

preference in a procurement does not 

preclude a bidder from outside the 

specified geographic area from 

competing for, and possibly being 

awarded, the contract subject to the 

geographic preference. Rather, a 

geographic preference is a tool that gives 

bidders in a specified geographic area a 

specific, defined advantage in the 

procurement process. We received a 

number of comments specifically 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requesting guidance on how to apply 

the geographic preference option in 

procurement specifications and 

procedures as well as questions on 

procurement processes in general. The 

Department published a policy 

memorandum for program cooperators 

on general procurement and geographic 

preference issues on February 1, 2011 

and will be publishing additional 

guidance on procurement provisions 

associated with implementation of the 

geographic preference option included 

in this final rule as needed. Therefore, 

no changes have been made to the 

procurement-specific provisions 

included in the proposed rule and those 

procurement provisions are finalized as 

proposed. 

Geographic Area 

By utilizing the statutorily established 

geographic preference option in Child 

Nutrition Programs, purchasing 

institutions, such as States, school food 

authorities, child care institutions and 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) 

sponsors, may specifically identify the 

geographic area within which 

unprocessed locally raised and locally 

grown agricultural products will 

originate. As indicated in the proposed 

rule, a responsive bidder would offer to 

provide unprocessed locally raised and 

locally grown agricultural products from 

the specifically identified geographic 

area. In most cases, we would expect 

that a bidder would be located in the 

identified geographic area, though it is 

possible for a responsive bidder to be 

located outside of that area. These 

procurements may be accomplished 

through informal or formal procurement 

procedures, as required by respective 

Child Nutrition Program regulations. 

The proposed rule provided for 

allowing institutions operating the 

Child Nutrition Programs to specifically 

define geographic areas from which they 

will seek to procure unprocessed local 

agricultural products. It was proposed 

that each institution, whether it be a 

school food authority, a child care 

institution or an SFSP sponsor, 

determine how to define the geographic 

area. As indicated previously, 47 

comments supported allowing the 

purchasing entity to define the local 

area in which the geographic preference 

option will be applied. No objections to 

this provision were received, therefore it 

is finalized in this rule as proposed. 

One comment specifically 

recommended that the ‘‘Buy American’’ 

provisions of § 210.21 and § 220.16 of 

the National School Lunch Program and 

School Breakfast Program regulations be 

specifically noted in this amendment to 

those programs regulations. In response 

to that comment, the Department 

reiterates that all other regulatory 

requirements of the Child Nutrition 

Programs must be complied with when 

implementing the geographic preference 

option. When specifying the local area 

from which items will be purchased 

using the geographic procurement 

option, purchasing entities must ensure 

that the ‘‘Buy American’’ requirements 

of the regulations are complied with and 

included in the procurement 

specifications. No change, however, has 

been made in the regulatory language of 

this final rule. 

Definition of Unprocessed Agricultural 

Products 

As provided in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement of the Committee of 

Conference in House Report 110–627, 

the term ‘‘unprocessed’’ precludes the 

use of geographic preference in 

procuring agricultural products that 

have significant value added 

components. The Conference report also 

noted the acceptability of de minimus 

handling and preparation ‘‘such as may 

be necessary to present an agricultural 

product to a school food authority in a 

useable form, such as washing 

vegetables, bagging greens, butchering 

livestock and poultry, pasteurizing milk, 

and putting eggs in a carton.’’ 

For the purpose of implementing the 

geographic preference procurement 

option in the Child Nutrition Programs, 

the Department proposed a definition of 

‘‘unprocessed agricultural products.’’ 

The guiding principles in developing 

the definition were that the definition 

should: 

(1) Comply with the language and 

reflect the intent of the statute; 

(2) Ensure that any processing of 

agricultural products results in only 

minimal value added to such products; 

and 

(3) Facilitate ease of use of such 

products for institutions. 

The definition of ‘‘unprocessed 

agricultural products’’ included in the 

proposed rule specifically prohibited 

any processing method that alters the 

inherent character of the agricultural 

product. To that end, we included in the 

proposed definition a list of acceptable 

food handling and preservation 

techniques for purposes of applying the 

geographic preference procurement 

option. Such techniques included: 

General heat transfer methods such as 

cooling, refrigerating and freezing; size 

adjustment through size reduction 

(peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting and 

grinding); drying/dehydration; washing; 

vacuum packing and bagging; 

pasteurization for milk; the application 

of high water pressure (‘‘cold 

pasteurization’’); butchering of livestock 

and poultry and the cleaning of fish. 

The Department asserted that these 

handling and preservation techniques 

both complied with the intent of the 

statute and did not alter the inherent 

character of agricultural products 

subjected to them. 

While two commentors supported the 

definition as proposed, a number of 

comments regarding the food handling 

and preservation techniques included in 

the definition were received. The 

following discussion outlines those 

comments by issue and the decisions 

made by the Department in response to 

the comments in this final rule. 

Combination Packages of Vegetables 

and Fruits 

Fifty comments were received 

expressing support for the addition of 

combination packages of local, frozen, 

bagged vegetables such as zucchini and 

summer squash or fresh vegetable roast 

packages such as winter squash, turnips 

and beets. The commentors indicated 

that the ‘‘inherent character’’ of the 

vegetables is not being altered in any 

way when packaged in such a manner 

and fits within the ‘‘de minimus’’ 

handling and preparation requirements 

intended by Congress. In addition, such 

packaging conforms with the language 

of the statute with regard to presenting 

the product in usable form. The 

Department agrees with the comments 

and, therefore, has revised the definition 

of ‘‘unprocessed agricultural products’’ 

to include such combination packaged 

items in this final rule. 

Frozen Products 

One commentor indicated that frozen 

products should be included in the 

definition. The proposed rule included 

frozen products and the final rule 

retains frozen products as acceptable as 

a preservation technique. Two 

comments were received requesting 

that, in order to ensure that flash frozen 

products are included in the definition, 

the Department specify Individually 

Quick Frozen (IQF) as an acceptable 

preservation technique. The final rule 

retains inclusion of frozen products as 

acceptable but the Department does not 

wish to include specific techniques for 

freezing since technology changes over 

time and such specific references to 

technique may necessitate future 

amendments to the regulation in 

response to changes in technology. 

Canned and Other Heat Preserved 

Products 

Three comments were received 

requesting that canned products be 

included in the definition of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22605 

‘‘unprocessed agricultural products.’’ 

One commentor wanted to allow 

pasteurized cider and pickled products 

to be considered ‘‘unprocessed’’ for 

purposes of specifying a geographic 

preference for procurement. While 

canned, pickled and pasteurized 

products are acceptable for service in 

the Child Nutrition Programs, such 

products would not be considered to be 

subject to a geographic procurement 

preference because heat processing does 

not meet the ‘‘de minimus’’ standard of 

processing established by Congress as 

assessed by the Department. Therefore, 

no change in this regulation has been 

made in response to these comments. 

Formed Products 

Fifty comments were received 

supporting allowing foods such as 

ground beef and other meat patties to be 

included in the definition of 

‘‘unprocessed agricultural products’’. 

Those comments assert that such 

products have been handled in a 

manner consistent with ‘‘de minimus’’ 

exceptions in that they are ground then 

formed similar to cutting carrots into 

sticks or coin shapes. The commentors 

indicated that contracting separately for 

further processing of ground meat 

products which does not change the 

inherent character of that product 

would be costly and time consuming for 

the purchasing entities. Five other 

commentors recommended allowing 

meat patties made with pure meat and 

containing no fillers or additives as 

meeting the criteria for geographic 

preference procurement. The 

Department agrees with these 

commentors and has revised the 

definition to include formed products 

that contain no additives or fillers as 

acceptable for purchase using the 

geographic preference procurement 

option. 

Other Products 

Forty-one comments were received 

recommending that cutting chicken or 

other meat into fajita strips and filleting 

fish be allowed as acceptable as meeting 

the definition of ‘‘unprocessed 

agricultural products’’. The Department 

wishes to point out that fish filets would 

be considered to be ‘‘cleaned’’ and cut, 

and slicing products into strips would 

be considered to be ‘‘cut’’, both of which 

are included in the definition as 

proposed. One commentor requested 

that ground flour be allowed to be 

considered as acceptable. The 

Department wishes to clarify that 

ground products are allowed and that 

the grinding of grain into flour would be 

considered to be acceptable as a ground 

product subject to the geographic 

preference procurement option. 

Therefore, there is no change to the 

definition in response to these 

comments. 

Preservatives 

Forty-six comments were received 

requesting clarification as to whether or 

not preservatives were allowed in 

products subject to the geographic 

preference procurement option. 

Specifically, they requested clarification 

as to whether or not ascorbic acid to 

hold color or prevent oxidation once a 

fruit or vegetable product was cut or 

chopped was acceptable. The 

Department agrees that this should be 

addressed and has provided for the 

addition of ascorbic acid and/or other 

preservatives that retain the color of a 

product or prevent oxidation to the 

definition of ‘‘unprocessed agricultural 

products’’. However, no other 

preservatives used for any other purpose 

are considered to be acceptable. 

Packaging 

One commentor requested that 

portion packaging be explicitly 

recognized as meeting the requirements 

of the rule. The Department wishes to 

point out that packaging is recognized 

as allowable with regard to the 

definition of ‘‘unprocessed agricultural 

products’’. The size of such packaging 

included in the procurement 

specifications is made at the discretion 

of the purchasing entity. Therefore, no 

change in response to this comment has 

been made in this final rule. 

High Water Pressure Cold 

Pasteurization 

One commentor expressed concern 

that the term ‘‘high water pressure cold 

pasteurization’’ included in the 

definition of ‘‘unprocessed agricultural 

product’’ could be interpreted to mean 

irradiation. The Department’s intent was 

to use this term in the definition to 

reference a washing technique. Since 

‘‘washing’’ is already included in the 

definition of ‘‘unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products’’ and in response to this 

comment, the term ‘‘high water pressure 

(cold pasteurization)’’ is removed from 

the definition. 

This final rule prohibits the 

application of the geographic preference 

procurement option for products 

subjected to processing methods not 

included in the definition of 

‘‘unprocessed agricultural products’’. 

This final rule adds new paragraphs 

to §§ 210.21, 215.14a, 220.16, 225.17 

and 226.22 of Title 7, CFR, to include 

the geographic preference procurement 

option and define the term 

‘‘unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products’’. 

Applicability to the Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program 

The geographic preference 

procurement option is applicable to 

purchases made in the Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, 42 U.S.C. 1769a 

(FFVP). However, this provision shall 

only be applied within the context of 

the FFVP’s requirement that produce 

utilized in the program be fresh. The 

definition of ‘‘unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products’’ does not change the basic 

statutory requirement that only fresh 

produce may be purchased using funds 

for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Program. Development of regulations 

pertaining to the requirements for the 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program are 

currently in process and the provisions 

relating to the geographic preference 

procurement option will be included in 

that proposed rule, as appropriate. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant and was not reviewed by 

the Office Management and Budget in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed with 

regard to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 

U.S.C. 601–612). It has been certified 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost/ 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with Federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

Department to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

more cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. This rule does not contain 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

impose costs on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or to the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This rule is, therefore, not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The National School Lunch Program 

and the School Breakfast Program are 

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance under No. 10.555 and 

10.553, respectively. The Special Milk 

Program is listed under No. 10.556. The 

Child and Adult Care Food Program is 

listed under No. 10.558 and the Summer 

Food Service Program for Children is 

listed under No. 10.559. For the reasons 

set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR Part 

3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 

FR 29115, June 24, 1983), these 

programs are included in the scope of 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

has considered the impact of this rule 

on State and local governments and has 

determined that this rule does not have 

federalism implications. This rule does 

not impose substantial or direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, under Section 

6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is intended to have 

preemptive effect with respect to any 

State or local laws, regulations or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions or which would otherwise 

impede its full implementation. This 

rule is not intended to have retroactive 

effect unless specified in the DATES

section of the final rule. Prior to any 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule or the application of its 

provisions, all applicable administrative 

procedures must be exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this rule in 

accordance with Departmental 

Regulations 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights 

Impact Analysis,’’ and 1512–1, 

‘‘Regulatory Decision Making 

Requirements.’’ After a careful review of 

the rule’s intent and provisions, FNS 

has determined that this rule is not 

intended to limit or reduce in any way 

the ability of protected classes of 

individuals to receive benefits on the 

basis of their race, color, national origin, 

sex, age or disability nor is it intended 

to have a differential impact on minority 

owned or operated business 

establishments, and woman- owned or 

operated business establishments that 

participate in the Child Nutrition 

Programs. This rule simply allows 

institutions that participate in the Child 

Nutrition Programs the option to apply 

a geographic preference should such 

institutions wish to procure 

unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part 

1320) requires that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approve all collections of information 

by a Federal agency before they can be 

implemented. Respondents are not 

required to respond to any collection of 

information unless it displays a current 

valid OMB control number. This rule 

does not contain information collection 

requirements subject to approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Food and Nutrition Service is 

committed to complying with the EGovernment Act of 2002, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

Executive Order 13175 

E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies 

to consult and coordinate with Tribes 

on a government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

In late 2010 and early 2011, USDA 

engaged in a series of consultative 

sessions to obtain input by Tribal 

officials or their designees concerning 

the impact of this rule on the Tribe or 

Indian Tribal governments, or whether 

this rule may preempt Tribal law. 

Reports from these consultations will be 

made part of the USDA annual reporting 

on Tribal Consultation and 

Collaboration. USDA will respond in a 

timely and meaningful manner to all 

Tribal government requests for 

consultation concerning this rule and 

will provide additional venues, such as 

webinars and teleconferences, to 

periodically host collaborative 

conversations with Tribal officials or 

their designees concerning ways to 

improve this rule in Indian country. 

We are unaware of any current Tribal 

laws that could be in conflict with this 

final rule. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 210 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, School 

breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

7 CFR Part 215 

Food assistance programs, Grant 

programs—education, Grant programs— 

health, Infants and children, Milk, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 220 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs. 

7 CFR Part 225 

Food assistance programs, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 226 

Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food 

assistance programs, Grant programs, 

Grant programs—health, Indians, 

Individuals with disabilities, Infants 

and children, Intergovernmental 

relations, Loan programs, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 

220, 225, and 226 are amended as 

follows: 

PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 210 continues to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22607 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751–1760, 1779. 

Subpart E—State Agency and School 

Food Authority Responsibilities 

■ 2. In § 210.21, paragraph (g) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 210.21 Procurement. 

* * * * * 

(g) Geographic preference. (1) A 

school food authority participating in 

the Program, as well as State agencies 

making purchases on behalf of such 

school food authorities, may apply a 

geographic preference when procuring 

unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products. When 

utilizing the geographic preference to 

procure such products, the school food 

authority making the purchase or the 

State agency making purchases on 

behalf of such school food authorities 

have the discretion to determine the 

local area to which the geographic 

preference option will be applied; 

(2) For the purpose of applying the 

optional geographic procurement 

preference in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section, ‘‘unprocessed locally grown or 

locally raised agricultural products’’ 

means only those agricultural products 

that retain their inherent character. The 

effects of the following food handling 

and preservation techniques shall not be 

considered as changing an agricultural 

product into a product of a different 

kind or character: Cooling; refrigerating; 

freezing; size adjustment made by 

peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting, 

chopping, shucking, and grinding; 

forming ground products into patties 

without any additives or fillers; drying/ 

dehydration; washing; packaging (such 

as placing eggs in cartons), vacuum 

packing and bagging (such as placing 

vegetables in bags or combining two or 

more types of vegetables or fruits in a 

single package); the addition of ascorbic 

acid or other preservatives to prevent 

oxidation of produce; butchering 

livestock and poultry; cleaning fish; and 

the pasteurization of milk. 

PART 215—SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM 

FOR CHILDREN 

■ 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 215 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779. 

■ 4. In § 215.14a, paragraph (e) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 215.14a Procurement standards. 

* * * * * 

(e) Geographic preference. A school 

food authority participating in the 

Program may apply a geographic 

preference when procuring milk. When 

utilizing the geographic preference to 

procure milk, the school food authority 

making the purchase has the discretion 

to determine the local area to which the 

geographic preference option will be 

applied. 

* * * * * 

PART 220—SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM 

■ 5. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 220 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 6. In § 220.16, paragraph (f) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 220.16 Procurement. 

* * * * * 

(f) Geographic preference. (1) School 

food authorities participating in the 

Program, as well as State agencies 

making purchases on behalf of such 

school food authorities, may apply a 

geographic preference when procuring 

unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products. When 

utilizing the geographic preference to 

procure such products, the school food 

authority making the purchase or the 

State agency making purchases on 

behalf of such school food authorities 

have the discretion to determine the 

local area to which the geographic 

preference option will be applied; 

(2) For the purpose of applying the 

optional geographic preference in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 

‘‘unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products’’ means only 

those agricultural products that retain 

their inherent character. The effects of 

the following food handling and 

preservation techniques shall not be 

considered as changing an agricultural 

product into a product of a different 

kind or character: Cooling; refrigerating; 

freezing; size adjustment made by 

peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting, 

chopping, shucking, and grinding; 

forming ground products into patties 

without any additives or fillers; drying/ 

dehydration; washing; packaging (such 

as placing eggs in cartons), vacuum 

packing and bagging (such as placing 

vegetables in bags or combining two or 

more types of vegetables or fruits in a 

single package); addition of ascorbic 

acid or other preservatives to prevent 

oxidation of produce; butchering 

livestock and poultry; cleaning fish; and 

the pasteurization of milk. 

* * * * * 

PART 225—SUMMER FOOD SERVICE 

PROGRAM 

■ 7. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 225 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, as 

amended, (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a). 

■ 8. In § 225.17, paragraph (e) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 225.17 Procurement standards. 

* * * * * 

(e) Geographic preference. (1) 

Sponsors participating in the Program 

may apply a geographic preference 

when procuring unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products. When utilizing the geographic 

preference to procure such products, the 

sponsor making the purchase has the 

discretion to determine the local area to 

which the geographic preference option 

will be applied; 

(2) For the purpose of applying the 

optional geographic preference in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, 

‘‘unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products’’ means only 

those agricultural products that retain 

their inherent character. The effects of 

the following food handling and 

preservation techniques shall not be 

considered as changing an agricultural 

product into a product of a different 

kind or character: Cooling; refrigerating; 

freezing; size adjustment made by 

peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting, 

chopping, shucking, and grinding; 

forming ground products into patties 

without any additives or fillers; drying/ 

dehydration; washing; packaging (such 

as placing eggs in cartons), vacuum 

packing and bagging (such as placing 

vegetables in bags or combining two or 

more types of vegetables or fruits in a 

single package); addition of ascorbic 

acid or other preservatives to prevent 

oxidation of produce; butchering 

livestock and poultry; cleaning fish; and 

the pasteurization of milk. 

PART 226—CHILD AND ADULT CARE 

FOOD PROGRAM 

■ 9. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 226 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a, 1765 

and 1766). 

■ 10. In § 226.22, paragraph (n) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 226.22 Procurement standards. 

* * * * * 

(n) Geographic preference. (1) 

Institutions participating in the Program 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission voted 4–0–1 to publish this 

revision to the notice of requirements for clothing 

textiles. Commissioners Nancy A. Nord and Anne 

M. Northup each issued a statement, and the 

statements can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/ 

statements.html. 

may apply a geographic preference 

when procuring unprocessed locally 

grown or locally raised agricultural 

products. When utilizing the geographic 

preference to procure such products, the 

institution making the purchase has the 

discretion to determine the local area to 

which the geographic preference option 

will be applied; 

(2) For the purpose of applying the 

optional geographic preference in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this section, 

‘‘unprocessed locally grown or locally 

raised agricultural products’’ means only 

those agricultural products that retain 

their inherent character. The effects of 

the following food handling and 

preservation techniques shall not be 

considered as changing an agricultural 

product into a product of a different 

kind or character: Cooling; refrigerating; 

freezing; size adjustment made by 

peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting, 

chopping, shucking, and grinding; 

forming ground products into patties 

without any additives or fillers; drying/ 

dehydration; washing; packaging (such 

as placing eggs in cartons), vacuum 

packing and bagging (such as placing 

vegetables in bags or combining two or 

more types of vegetables or fruits in a 

single package); addition of ascorbic 

acid or other preservatives to prevent 

oxidation of produce; butchering 

livestock and poultry; cleaning fish; and 

the pasteurization of milk. 

Dated: April 18, 2011. 

Audrey Rowe, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9843 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

7 CFR Part 4280 

Notice of a Public Meeting on the Rural 

Energy for America Program 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS) will hold two 

informational Webinars for the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP) 

associated with the recently published 

REAP interim rule and Notice of Funds 

Availability (NOFA). Participation will 

be limited for each Webinar to the first 

two hundred registrants. 

DATES: The Webinars will be held on 

Friday, April 29, 2011, and on Monday, 

May 2, 2011, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT 

both days. You must register, as 

described in the ADDRESSES section, by 

noon EDT April 27, 2011, for the April 

29, 2011, Webinar and by noon EDT 

April 28, 2011, for the May 2, 2011, 

Webinar. 

ADDRESSES: To participate in one of the 

Webinars, you must register for one of 

the Webinars by sending an e-mail to: 

energydivision@wdc.usda.gov. You must 

include in the SUBJECT line the date of 

the Webinar for which you wish to 

participate, and in the body of the 

e-mail, please provide the participant’s 

name, e-mail address, mailing address, 

and telephone number. You must 

submit your e-mail by the applicable 

deadline listed in the DATES section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donnetta Rigney, Rural BusinessCooperative Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Stop 3225, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3221, 

Telephone: (202) 720–9812. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The REAP 

interim rule and the NOFA were 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 14, 2011. In order to familarize the 

public with the content of the REAP 

interim rule, representatives of the 

Department of Agriculture are 

conducting the two Webinars. The 

purpose of these Webinars is to provide 

information on the interim rule for the 

Rural Energy for America Program, 

focusing on the provisions associated 

with flexible fuel pumps and other 

significant changes being implemented 

through the interim rule. Participants 

will be afforded the opportunity to ask 

questions on the material included in 

the presentation. 

Please note that formal comments on 

the interim rule will not be accepted 

during the Webinar. Instead, the public 

has an opportunity to comment formally 

on the interim rule as provided in the 

interim rule published in the Federal 

Register on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 

21110). 

All prospective registrants will be 

notified by the Agency via e-mail if they 

are or are not among the first two 

hundred registrants for one of the two 

Webinars. 

Participants are responsible for 

ensuring their systems are compatible 

with the Webinar software. 

Dated: April 18, 2011. 

Judith A. Canales, 

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9725 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1610 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0086] 

Third Party Testing for Certain 

Children’s Products; Clothing Textiles: 

Revisions to Terms of Acceptance of 

Children’s Product Certifications 

Based on Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Body Testing Prior to 

Commission’s Acceptance of 

Accreditation 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of requirements; revision 

of retrospective testing terms. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ 

‘‘Commission,’’ or ‘‘we’’) issues this 

notice amending the terms under which 

it will accept certifications for 

children’s products based on third party 

conformity assessment body (laboratory) 

testing to the flammability regulations at 

16 CFR part 1610 that occurred before 

the Commission’s acceptance of the 

accreditation of the third party 

conformity assessment body.1 We are 

taking this action in response to a 

request from certain members of the 

clothing textile industry to reduce 

unnecessary retesting of clothing 

textiles that have been tested already 

and found to be in compliance with 

CPSC regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: The revision 

announced in this document is effective 

April 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert ‘‘Jay’’ Howell, Assistant Executive 

Director for the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; e-mail: rhowell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110– 

314, directs the CPSC to publish a 

notice of requirements for accreditation 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies to assess children’s products for 

conformity with ‘‘other children’s 

product safety rules.’’ Section 14(f)(1) of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES